tvc184

No way. I have it on good information that he is a member of the tea party and is angry because Ted Cruz did not get the nomination.

I guess all members of the clergy are child molesters. This is very easy to prove because several years ago the Catholic Church admitted that they had a problem with pedophile priests and even covered up the information. Buy your reasoning anyone in the clergy must be a pedophile or at least an overwhelming majority.

Either you have reading comprehension problems, you make up your own "facts" as you go along or maybe just poor memory. You cannot find a single post that I have made in any forum that says such practices do not exist. I have never said that in my career and never will but here you are claiming that I have said that. I am thinking there may be some validity to this being an alter ego identity. I have said that the blue wall of silence, as is claimed by many people, does not exist. The idea that all officers will cover all officers or even anywhere near a substantial percentage of officers is bogus. Just as in any profession or group of people, there will always be crooked police officers. Some of the stuff in the 60 Minutes piece is pure nonsense. Things like statistics on race or money paid out by cities is drawing a conclusion with nothing to back up the conclusions. I don't know if it can be found anymore but if you want to see nonsense on statistics you should read something called a fair roads standard back from the 1990s. LULAC, NAACP and ACLU wanted stops by police officers of minorities not to reflect only by population but by number of drivers licenses issues. That goes by the utter nonsense that everyone driving has a valid license. You could come ride Patrol with me and I can stop several people in a row that have no drivers license. According to the fair road standard this does not exist and I am imagining things. You are either intentionally or unintentionally making up things and why le you did not make up the article for 60 minutes, it proves absolutely nothing. It certainly does not "refute" anything.

That is an interesting story that you made for a "what if" scenario. Did you listen to the several minutes of the 911 recording? And again, do you have any evidence that you read to support any of your claims?

Again, do you any evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman ever confronted Martin? Any? Any?

You do realize that most of the "evidence" originally put out against Zimmerman was fabricated by several media outsets.... at their later admission. ABC covered up Zimmerman's injuries from video and photo, CNN made false claims of racial slurs and NBC altered the 911 recording to make it look like Zimmerman was calling about Martin's race.

Are you suggesting that people should not go look over their neighborhood? You have several times in different threads brought up community policing but do you know that a major part of community policing deals with citizen patrols? In fact for three years I commanded a community policing group and on many occasions have ridden in support of these patrols.

You have no idea what happened yet you want another officer to give him a kick in the butt? The us vs. them is usually brought on by them. I have not defended this officer in a single post on any forum. I have no idea what his provocation was and neither do you yet you are ready to render a verdict. With that mindset you chastise officers for rushing to judgment.

1. Instructions given by dispatchers have no legal bearing and may not even be correct. 2. Yes he was on 911 and it sounded like me that he followed his instructions.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman chased Martin down and pulled a gun on him? The backwoods justice was attempted by Martin. A listen to the entire and not edited 911 recording is about 99.5% in favor of Zimmerman not chasing Martin at all, much less catching him. Your opinion on officer salaries, at least in this area, is skewed. I believe that I make more per hour than most O&G workers. They have a distinct advantage in overtime potential.

"What happened?"

I am not so sure about the idea of doesn't get to play cop. I am not familiar with FL laws but in TX a citizen has the same authority (not right) to arrest for certain crimes. In that section of the law it is even mentioned in the same sentence. It doesn't say a cop can do this but a citizen can do that.

What someone "should" have done on most occasions has no bearing on a criminal investigation. Martin had no right to stand his ground if he was breaking the law as he was doing as he attacked Zimmerman. Who kills at will? Out of the 13 million arrests by the police each year, many against very violent criminals who many times resist arrest, how many are killed at will? What do you call "aren't paid particularly well"?

If it was in this area I can almost assure you that you will not see the footage because if it can be used in a criminal investigation, it is not public information. A department "may" release it at their discretion. Different states have freedom of information laws and what another state does depends on their laws.

He probably thought they were talking about Mensa.

Knowledge of what actually happened would be nice but I am assuming we should build the gallows after seeing a few seconds of video and having no other facts at hand.

Hopefully he will not open his mouth about it but he probably has his cell phone in his hand wondering what to tweet.

Even you must realize that those numbers are bogus. Yes unemployment is down, because many people have simply left the work force and we have the lowest worker participation in decades. Your rationale is like doing away with DWI laws and using that as evidence that drinking and driving is no longer a problem. Unemployment is horrendous and wages are down and in many cases only for part time jobs. The Dow took a dip because of a recession. In fact the Dow was about 17,000 in the late 90's so realistically it has risen but about 1,800 in almost 20 years. This meme takes a tiny snippet of time to make nonsensical comparisons.

I am all for putting officers on foot. What you do need is about a 20% increase in the size of police departments. I don't know any officers including chiefs that will turn down more manpower. Please petition your city council for that increase.

It isn't favoritism. It is self defense. I suppose by your comments that you believe that the police have no protection when upholding laws put in place by not them but the legislature. Everything should be "equal". I guess you believe that when an officer stops you it should be like two guys arguing in a bar and each has equal rights. Nothing has happened to community policing. What does that have to do with anything in this thread or the use of force?

I don't associate in any manner what happened in this case to BLM, any other group or any race. Their actions stand alone. Interesting on the police thread that some want all police held accountable for the actions of a tiny percentage But moving on..... I think the problem is if you reversed the situation. Had 4 white people beaten and cut a mentaly challenged black person while making statements that this attack was because he was black and because he voted for Obama, you wouldn't have groups or the police saying they are not sure this about hate or don't know if it is a hate crime. In that situation the cry would be often, loud and maybe followed by marches and celebrities showing up if someone suggested it was not about race Therein lies the perceived problem.

Attack the police or fail to comply with orders and you can likely expect unpleasant yet lawful results.

No, the legal system overwhelmingly favors the accused and unfortunately for many people, that includes police officers accused also. Use of force does favor the police as well it should. A person does not have any right to resist, assault or flee from an officer. Police and citizen interactions are generally not with consent meaning you have no rights to resist in any manner as listed previously and it doesn't matter if you don't like or don't trust the police. It doesn't matter if the police are talking to a family member or good friend. You cannot lawfully interfere. The laws have to give officers that authority or all law enforcement becomes voluntary. You can fight them in court, not on the side of the road. Many times the US Supreme Court is split 5-4 on cases but there are many 7-2, 8-1 and 9-0 rulings favoring the police. Safety is not a liberal or conservative issue. The Court realizes that officers and the public are endangered when that authority is not given or upheld. You will find that the Court often goes against officers in questions of detention, searches, etc., and on some occasions by those same wide votes. The rulings against officers is not uncommon on searches and seizures but is uncommon on uses of force in self defense. It is simple and stated all the time. When the police order you to do something, comply. You can get a lawyer and fight them later but in face to face contacts you are correct, the laws heavily favor the police and that is the way it should be.

Where do you see "all of them had it coming"? He said "handled appropriately" which means lawful. There is a huge difference. It is hard to take you seriously with such reasoning skills.

Hate only goes in one direction.